497 Comments

"Unless we start taking the actions that are needed to curb climate change right now, California and the rest of the American southwest may soon look more like the Sahara than one of the most populous regions in the U.S."

HUGE news: After pressure from climate activists, Microsoft dropped out of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Microsoft is the latest company to cut ties with the controversial group, but despite mounting pressure, Google remains an ALEC member. ALEC's history of blocking renewable energy at the state level flies in the face of Google's "Don't be evil" tagline — the two just don't mix.

Right now, Microsoft is getting praise from the media and climate activists, something Google would like too. If we seize the moment, we can force Google to cut ties and sink ALEC.

Forecast the Facts is a grassroots organization that empowers people to fight climate change denial and promote accurate information about the climate crisis. You can follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Help us end climate denial once and for all by contributing here.

Thank you for the comment. Anyone who can not see that the members of ALEC who are in office - ARE a malignant Cancer - well at the very least they do not know what legislation this cancer has pushed into being or what good ( good for the people country environment world ) legislation they have roadblocked ( outright ) or just sabotaged in form and function.

"There were thousands! You could hear them,” says Olina Jonsdottir, who has lived on this island with her husband, Hafsteinn Gudmundsson, nearly 50 years. She looks out her living room window, past the sheep grazing on knuckles of grass-covered lava, past the black basalt beach, to the few birds drifting over the water beyond. “You can’t do that anymore. Now there are so few.”

Taxing which people? The few the mega profiteers of Fossil Fuel? Because ya see the population need not be made to eat the carbon Tax if it is placed on the mega fossil fuel business - as long as price caps are placed - THEN - only the profits of mega fossil fuel is affected = downward - making it more profitable to switch over operations to clean energy production.

Remove ALEC members from government and I think we will begin to see a change for the better - the people need to be involved and tell government "what is what" - part of that is removing = anti people pro fossil fuel politicians from office.

The people can very much make a difference in how a carbon tax is applied - and the best way would be for the inclusion of price caps - so that the tax is not put onto the end customer = the public.

Removing roadblocks from government - roadblocks to a healthy and prosperous world for all - IS a function of direct democracy - the people getting involved and taking action with-in the system - IS direct democracy. Removing members of ALEC from government would be a very positive use of direct democracy by The People.

If you want to remove people in bed with the oil companies, you would have to clean house and the not allow any of the choices from primaries to be even humored. Which I support, just dont see it happening at this point. November is going to be another shameful display of voting as usual.

The price cap thing is something, but applying to a globally traded commodity could prove to be disastrous. And again, think of the people that pass it and then regulate it- all in bed with em anyways.

I'm a big believer in alternative energy, for pollution reasons and also for cost reasons. With the amount of stimulus they have spent, we could have put solar on every household in the country and had some left over. Now imagine those households covert to electronic cars. We have just eliminated their electric bill and their gas bill. Talk about stimulus.

With all of that being said, I guess what Im saying is be careful what you ask for. As things stand now, they would be more than happy to appease some people and increase their taxes.

Are you trying to tell me that ALEC is a meaningless issue? Because it sure sounds like you are.

Are you saying that the people can not make positive change by making use of direct democracy? Because it sure sounds like you are.

On your last sentence "The gov was owned by oil men long before ALEC reared its head." Are you saying that the people can not remove oilmen from government by using direct democracy? Because it sure sounds like you are.

Are you denying that ALEC is a strong force for oilmen? Because it sure sounds like you are.

You say you are for a better world for ALL of the people. But it sure does not sound like you are.

ALEC is a resource, its just the latest middleman group for the corps and the pols. ALEC is a central platform to use, but say you break up ALEC, its not like the lobbyists can't still pick up the phone and call their favorite politicians, or just send em a check, right?

The people are more than capable of removing the oilmen from the government, if they care to. Its going to be around the usual 90% re-election rate this upcoming election, and that is just with representatives.

We have the potential to do all sorts of things, its just usually not enough of a priority for enough people. If the people that claim to care about the environment more than others, are openly endorsing people to make regulation who are in bed with those same people, then its probably not too practical to expect the rest of the population to rise to an even higher level, right?

I mean, you endorse people who take money from the oil men, and claim to care about global warming. You also endorse people who take money from the very corporations that make up ALEC, and claim to want to end ALEC.

So if someone like you, who studies this stuff much more than the average person, cannot bring themselves to a higher standard, should we expect more from the people who study it less?

It is just a resource, like I said, if you told ALEC it was disbanded, what would happen?

Has the environment that allows it changed? No. Its like thinking that disbanding AIPAC would get rid of that disgusting influence in our government.

The corporations don't need specific club like ALEC in order to write a bill and then bribe a politician to pass it. Its actually pretty brazen when you think about it, to create these outside influence groups in the broad daylight.

But hey, if the people can't connect the dots then why not.

(did I strike a nerve with the end of the previous comment? Its an honest question, should we be expecting more out of the general population when the ones who study this stuff cant even get out of their own way?)

You are taking things as negative instead of a simple reflection we have to do as individuals. The ones that proclaim voting as the solution tend to endorse some of the most horrific actions by their endorsement of the ones voting for such things, taking the money from such things, and openly powwowwing with such things.

Its an acknowledgment of our current reality. If people are too soft to handle it then the chances of them creating change are pretty slim, dontcha think? I mean, jeez, its just something to consider.

If the ring leaders of your saviors are in bed with the oil men, its kind of hard to imagine your saviors ever doing anything against em. Right?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

So your "considered opinion"- would be - to be - apathetic and do nothing.

BTW - removing from office - those who are in bed with the oilmen - would not be waiting for a non-existent savior in office that is in bed with the oilmen to make the necessary changes. That is the point of removing said in bed politicians from office.

"BTW - removing from office - those who are in bed with the oilmen - would not be waiting for a non-existent savior in office that is in bed with the oilmen to make the necessary changes. That is the point of removing said in bed politicians from office."

Right, you claim that, and then you directly go and vote for people who are in bed with them. So wtf over?

I like good people, but you have to put them into a situation to succeed. Clearly the DNC and RNC are not going to allow certain things, the very things that have to occur to get real, meaningful change. So we can rule that out.

And perhaps we should stop making everyone who has had some issues and troubles look like a crook during campaigns. We have ended up with a bunch of weak, inept and unable to lead losers as a result of it.

I have my one word solution, that I know you absolutely love: Decentralize.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

I have one word to describe your idea of decentralization = IDIOTIC

For one - state government = 50 of em - IS decentralized.

To make them even more so is to invite even more opportunity for misuse/manipulation.

If you can't get on board with the people being able to make positive change on what is a more coherent whole ( more coherent than is your further decentralization ) - I do not see how you see your suggestion as being "more controllable" - and so better for or by the people.

I like good people, but you have to put them into a situation to succeed. Clearly the DNC and RNC are not going to allow certain things, the very things that have to occur to get real, meaningful change. So we can rule that out.

And perhaps we should stop making everyone who has had some issues and troubles look like a crook during campaigns. We have ended up with a bunch of weak, inept and unable to lead losers as a result of it.

I have my one word solution, that I know you absolutely love: Decentralize.

[ edit ] I see that the downvote ( silently ) anti-ALEC comments brigade is back. Were you just waiting for activity to die down on the site before returning to bury anti-ALEC comments?

edit -> That is a lot of downvotes with no comments being made as to state a disagreement.

Could it be the work of a STINKLE TEAM ??? Duhn duhn DUHNNNNNN ( add in dramatic thunderous roll of the kettle drum - OH and some lightning flashes with claps of thunder and a couple of screaming horses )

What is the purpose that ALEC serves between corporations and politicians?

Does it provide them a place to meet? Does it provide them with increased fundraising abilities?

Do the people who write the legislation need to belong to a group called ALEC to do so? Or could join the Mickey Mouse club and still be able to physically write bills and then physically or electronically email them?

Hmmm... And it is ironic that as I state our inability to get out of our own way you turn hostile and as usual. Social programming 101.

The system sucks - because it is not static and so is always changing and so the people need to stay active educated and involved?

Is that what you are saying?

Because if it is - well then - you will never find peace with the system - any system. Well maybe you could pray to god for god's return bringing god's kingdom/rule/system with - as that is likely the only system which will not change - as - it will all go god's way as god chooses. So perhaps you want to get down on your knees and start praying - other than that you must accept the fact that change is one thing you can count on and the peoples involvement will always be needed.

Well, ya vote on amendments and then they become law. If there is no power for a politician to change it, you don't have to worry about the babysitting. Static? No, nothing is. Much less of a pain in the ass than this garbage nonsense we have now? Most certainly.

Easy enough solution? Creating things vs monitoring politicians are two totally different types of involvement. One leads to positive, the other is a useless expenditure.

So ALECs - the platform, not the physical politicians and CEOs that make it up- the biggest benefit is to serve as a PAC/SUPERPAC and funnel money?

Thats kind of my point. You remove the platform, and they just go create another PAC.

"ALEC also drafts laws/legislation for it's members to push forward in government."

So who are individuals who are doing the physical writing? Chances are they are the corporate lawyers, right? So if ALEC is ended, do the corporate lawyers now not have the ability to write them? Or could they just simply keep going on business as usual?

Personally I don't like anything that ALEC does, writes, etc. But as the saying goes, dont hate the playa hate the game.... yo. :)

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

You desperately determined IDIOT. No things do not stay static - and that is why the people need not only to get involved - BUT - STAY INVOLVED. Of course when one group of government manipulators who are working against the best interests of the people and the planet are removed from office - others that pop up to replace them - MUST be kept out of office and removed from office if they get in.

So without ALEC, the corporations would have no one to write the legalize for them? Without ALEC, the politicians would just magically shape up and say no to the money?

I didn't say that - that is you inferring ( again ) that people can not make positive change happen.

I'm aware of how corporations write legislation and have politicians pass it for them, bribing them along the way. The difference between me and you is that you blame the little club they created, and Im not too concerned with which little club they are currently using, Im concerned with the physical actions.

So then you should make yourself aware of some of that little (?) clubs actions. Like Stand Your Ground Laws and Tax Breaks For The wealthy and and and and and and and and and and and and and...........

So you think that if ALEC was forced to disband their little club, not sure what its cateorized as a nonprofit or corporations or whatever, that all the people involved would suddenly have no idea what to do?

Disband their club? Really? I want their members removed from office in state and federal government. To hell with the club - though it is a good listing of people to be wary of. Removing their members from office will make it that much harder for them to manipulate government. ( are you really so dense that you do not see this ? )

Come on, like I said before, we can't get out of our own way with or without them. Close the club, knock yourself out. As previously stated, if those who claim to care about the environment are openly endorsing people who trash it, I'm sure they can figure out another way around your detective skills.

And there ya go again - being negative and trying to put positive action down ( again and again and again ) - rather than try to build positive action up and get the public motivated and involved.

You are taking things as negative instead of a simple reflection we have to do as individuals. The ones that proclaim voting as the solution tend to endorse some of the most horrific actions by their endorsement of the ones voting for such things, taking the money from such things, and openly powwowwing with such things.

Its an acknowledgment of our current reality. If people are too soft to handle it then the chances of them creating change are pretty slim, dontcha think? I mean, jeez, its just something to consider.

If the ring leaders of your saviors are in bed with the oil men, its kind of hard to imagine your saviors ever doing anything against em. Right?

So ALECs - the platform, not the physical politicians and CEOs that make it up- the biggest benefit is to serve as a PAC/SUPERPAC and funnel money?

Thats kind of my point. You remove the platform, and they just go create another PAC.

"ALEC also drafts laws/legislation for it's members to push forward in government."

So who are individuals who are doing the physical writing? Chances are they are the corporate lawyers, right? So if ALEC is ended, do the corporate lawyers now not have the ability to write them? Or could they just simply keep going on business as usual?

Personally I don't like anything that ALEC does, writes, etc. But as the saying goes, dont hate the playa hate the game.... yo. :)

So without ALEC, the corporations would have no one to write the legalize for them? Without ALEC, the politicians would just magically shape up and say no to the money?

I'm aware of how corporations write legislation and have politicians pass it for them, bribing them along the way. The difference between me and you is that you blame the little club they created, and Im not too concerned with which little club they are currently using, Im concerned with the physical actions.

So you think that if ALEC was forced to disband their little club, not sure what its cateorized as a nonprofit or corporations or whatever, that all the people involved would suddenly have no idea what to do?

Come on, like I said before, we can't get out of our own way with or without them. Close the club, knock yourself out. As previously stated, if those who claim to care about the environment are openly endorsing people who trash it, I'm sure they can figure out another way around your detective skills.

This of course applies to any industry of origination of product - to end inflation - the ability - to keep cranking up the prices at the beginning of the supply chain must be halted - that way price regulation can be managed down stream from the originating source as well.

Competition can be gr8 for improving quality and so for a larger ownership of the market - but once ownership even of a slight majority of the market place - does not halt inflation - inflation continues as the source (s) decide they can afford to bump up prices to boost profits. Price caps can halt inflation for profits - and then it is just a matter of offering the best product as to the market share any business will have.

[ edit ] F buying all of the coal reserves - "eminent domain confiscate" em and sequester them for forever where they currently reside in the ground. And start by kicking the fossil fuel assholes off of out of national park lands.

I think the article is suggesting fracking as the alternative, and seems to forget that the US gov that is going to buy it all up is the same one that gives oil companies 80 billion a year in our money, our hard earned money, for free.

"The walruses are telling us what the polar bears have told us and what many indigenous people have told us in the high Arctic, and that is that the Arctic environment is changing extremely rapidly and it is time for the rest of the world to take notice and also to take action to address the root causes of climate change."

BTW - don't know if you saw this - but here is a handy dandy 50 state applicable listing of individuals who need to be kept away from government as well as business's to protest and boycott. It really is a gr8 tool to be shared out and around.

House Speaker John Boehner and the chairman of the House Science Committee are both unsure whether the science behind climate change -- the stuff that shows pretty clearly that carbon pollution produced by humans is damaging our environment -- is real.

Instead, they're on the record saying things like this:

"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide." - John Boehner, April 2009

As long as our members of Congress continue to develop their own theories behind climate change, we will fall further and further behind in our ability to make actual progress on this issue.

Make them do better. Add your name to join OFA's team that will hold climate deniers in Congress accountable:

Here is one. John Robinson from the Island Bay World Service. A career multidisciplinary scientist who has studied the problem since the 1970s and written many books. He is in New Zealand next to Australia. There seems to be a more independent thinking in that area. Well worth reading through.
It is a free ebook that can be downloaded in many formats. Full of authoritative information and sound conclusions.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/290485

I am not sure of that but evidently China's policy has possibly trimmed births aggregated to approximately a few hundred million and up to a similar number as the present US population.
Something has to give and the present path has been well plotted some time ago. Various scientific institutes have reviewed the data and predictions published in 1972, which still appear to be right on track , but ignored and denigrated by the business leaders and of course the financial sector who just make hay wherever possible regardless the consequences.
A sample of what it is about. Nothing new but much ignored.

There is not a seriously feasible path suggested to living on other planets as far as I can see.

The biological adaption needed is far beyond anything seriously suggested as possible following known effects found with short term space travel to date and living in even a reduced gravitational field for example.

Long distance travel over thousands of years would either mean reproducing during space flight which would require food, exercise, a new culture and host of completely unexplored human adaptions which would not resemble anything known to date. Probably far beyond man's capability mentally, physiologically and socially.
Suspending life with freezing has been looked at but once again the idea is but another dream.

Similarly servicing a space colony would require such an overhead as to be in the realms of fantasy. Even if we found candidate planets similar to Earth at a similar stage in their existence, would most likely take many thousands of years with travel to and from being impractical on a human scale.

It just doesn't stack up.

As much as we hear the suggestion of finding another planet to live on [ and perhaps destroy also unless we change our ways?] the amount of energy and resources needed to attempt colonizing an alien planet puts it beyond any sensible prediction.
We have problems organising sustainable transport on Earth. High energy dependence is but one barrier of thousands that we would have to face.

A much more feasible future would be to control the human habitation of Earth so a sustainable future is possible, which would mean cutting human population and the destruction we do.
The drivers to preventing intelligent planning seem to be in the hands of the super rich psychopaths, the 0.1%.

Whenever an "economist" or politician talks of growth you know they have it wrong and are a part of the problem.

The growth mindset is the problem preventing intelligent planning for man's limited future. The more resources we use then the smaller the surviving human population can be.

The boom illusion and the following bust will be of a scale unprecedented.

EPA Hearings Show Just How Much Polluting Energy Companies Are Desperate And In Denial

In early June, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the latest piece in the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan: a proposed rule to dramatically cut carbon pollution from America’s coal-fired power plants in the coming decades. The rule is an essential step for public health and for slowing the effects of climate change.

Today marks the next formal phase in the rule-making process: public hearings on the rule are taking place today and tomorrow in four cities around the country, with up to 1,600 people slated to offer their comments. These individuals include some of the foremost proponents and opponents of the rule — and the activity surrounding these hearings encapsulates just how desperate and out of touch polluters and their allies who oppose the rule are.

Take Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA). In remarks at an event at the Heritage Foundation, Kelly likened the new EPA rule to terrorism. “You talk about terrorism — you can do it in a lot of different ways,” he said. “But you terrorize the people who supply everything this country needs to be great — and you keep them on the sidelines — my goodness, what have we become?”

This isn’t the first time climate deniers and opponents of renewable energy solutions have made this outrageous comparison. In fact, Rep. Kelly is really just drawing from the talking points of polluters. The polluter-front group Environmental Policy Alliance ran a print ad in Washington, D.C. media last month making similar comparisons, and the Koch-backed Heartland Institute lost funding after running billboards that equated people who believe in global warming to the Unibomber in 2012.

Here’s another: At the public hearing on the EPA rule in Washington, D.C., the Vice President of coal mining giant Peabody Energy referred to the climate science of which 97 percent of scientists agree as “climate theory.”

On the other side, Center for American Progress Vice President of Energy Policy Greg Dotson also testified at the hearing, urging the EPA to stay committed to reducing emissions: “protecting our children from carbon pollution is your legal duty. And it’s everyone’s moral obligation.”

In addition, the White House released new evidence to coincide with the hearings that warns of the cost of climate inaction. The report estimates that delaying climate action to the point at which emissions rise to 3 degress Celsius above pre-industrial levels, rather than 2 degrees, would cost the U.S. economy $150 billion a year.

Here are just a few other facts on why the new EPA rule, and the projected 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions because of it, is so vital:

•150,000: The possible number of asthma attacks per year avoided when a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions is achieved.

•490,000: The possible number of missed school or work days avoided when a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions is achieved.

•$93 billion: The possible economic value of the public health benefit when a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions is achieved.

•$7: The amount in health benefits that Americans will see for every dollar invested as a result of this plan.

BOTTOM LINE: The new EPA rule is a huge step for public health and for our children’s futures. The companies that oppose this rule are desperate, dirty, and in denial. For other health threats like arsenic, mercury, and lead, we set limits on contaminants to keep people safe. But we let dirty power plants release as much carbon pollution into the air as they want. That needs to change.

Solar is well advanced in many countries but here it has been blocked by big money manipulating politicians and the market.

Solar and wind both need natural mineral resources to implement so relying on them expecting and expanding energy usage won't work long term. We need to reduce our energy usage and plan for a low energy existence.

From 1900 to 1950 we used a tiny fraction of the available global mineral resources.

1950 to 2000 we used a quarter of the total available .

2000 to 2014 we have used about another quarter and are chewing through what's available at an increasing rate.

So to date we have used two thirds of what is available. We have one third left to last from here on, and that third is the hardest to get.

Mineral resource use increases as our energy use increases. The two are locked together with pollution being the third running partner.

If there were more mineral resources then we would go on to make much more pollution,
doubling the resource trebles the pollution we make.

The big picture is not simple, make more of anything without consequences to our future ids not what can happen.

Smaller population will happen either by overshoot we are in now creating a catastrophic crash or we limit it purposefully.

Solar while we can - Yes = a must.

But it is no guarantee that we will survive. It has been left too late.

The bold warning issued over 40 years ago has been ignored, lied about and rubbished ; but it holds true.

I wrote a comment below about 10 hours before you came here. Global Warming is real, every scientist agrees, and it's a shame that US is moving so slow on the matter as they play a big role in the problem. What in the world are you guys doing? Where is Obama, your savior? You guys should be leading the show for the whole world.

I can't ever remember Lightning that was like a bomb going off. Let me clarify that statement - yes I have heard some mighty lightning "strikes" where it hits a nearby tree or telephone/electrical utility pole. But not lighting that just seems to explode in midair - localized/limited to just that one point in midair - with no path linking it to the ground or through the clouds.

Plenty of thunder storms with cloud to cloud and cloud to ground etc type of lighting with plenty of rumbling thunder.

But - NO - not Bomb Lightning.

Bomb Lightning - where there is no path that the lightning takes - it just kind of explodes in midair in one location = BAHHH-BOOOOOM - with a blinding flash of light and a huge EMP ( electromagnetic pulse ) that takes down the power in the neighborhood - weird in that it doesn't strike or blow a transformer on a pole or something - it just seems to pop breakers that get auto reset sometime shortly after the BLAST. Took a good ten minutes for the internet to reset after the power came back on.

And I say blast - because that is exactly what it sounds like and feels like. A huge pressure wave ( shock wave ) that shakes the ground - your house and You.

It can feel like you got part of that EMP jolt as well - I wonder what it is like for someone with a pacemaker.

Anyway - This is the 1st spring/summer/fall - where I have experienced this type of Bomb Lightning. You?

Exxon Hates the World.

That’s really the only conclusion we can come to. They are dooming us and our children to a planet torn apart by climate chaos ‒ and they’re using our tax dollars to do it.

Exxon may think they’re Too Big To Fight, but we have the truth on our side. That’s why we’re so excited to introduce the third and final ad in our “Exxon Hates” trilogy: Exxon Hates the World.

Exxon forced our first ad, Exxon Hates Your Children, off the air. Comcast and Time Warner refused to let us run Exxon Hates America. So this time, we’re taking Exxon Hates the World directly to the people, by launching a major ad campaign in the New York City subway system next week.

No I haven't started looking into the phenomena yet to see if it has been officially noted in any way yet or even reported unofficially. I just noted it myself today as it happened just after I got on-line to check mail and stuff. My heart was pounding with adrenalin for a couple of hours afterwards.

Scientists are screaming from the rooftops that climate change isn't just a bit of warming and some more storms. No exaggeration, our actual survival is at risk -- this is a fight to save the world.

Our biosphere is in a fragile balance. Warm it a bit, and feedback loops start to kick in. Warming melts the arctic ice that reflects sunlight, which means more sunlight absorbed, which means more warming, which melts more ice etc. etc. These feedback loops have begun, and they're approaching 'tipping points' where they spin out of our control, threatening everything we love.

The UN understands this, and they've called an emergency summit of world leaders in New York to discuss action, even inviting our movement into the meeting! The problem is, our heads of state are politicians, not scientists, and they respond to public pressure. They see the polls, but they ask, "where are the protests?" Sept. 21st is our answer.

With thousands of organisations from unions to faith groups, and hundreds of thousands of people already signed up, we're about to launch the biggest climate change mobilisation in history, with marches from New York to Paris to Rio. On September 21st, we need to shake the world. To get there, we need to mobilise thousands of organisers, saturate subways and airwaves with ads, and mount an effective media operation.

If 50,000 of us contribute just a small amount in the next 5 days, we can make it happen. It's time to save the world, let's launch the movement that can do it.

Click to pledge now. Avaaz will only process our pledges if we raise enough:

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $2

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $4

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $8

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $16

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $32

To pledge an amount other than the ones listed above, click here.

This mobilisation has one goal: to show turnout. For a full 15 minutes, world leaders at the summit will have to sit and listen to our message, through images, videos, and more. The more of us hit the streets, the more powerful message we send to politicians that urgent action is their priority. New York is the focus, since that's where the summit is, and a huge turnout in the United States (which has traditionally lagged on climate change) will be most politically powerful.

Small donations from 50,000 of us in the next 5 days will allow us to:

purchase hundreds of radio and subway ads in New York and key cities to drive turnout
recruit hundreds of organisers to engage thousands of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of marchers
mount a serious media operation and engage celebrities to ensure the march gets covered
create big and bold stunts to create buzz in the media
bring 'climate survivors' and spokespeople from vulnerable communities to provide the media with powerful voices from the front lines of climate devastation
build an offline network of organisers, volunteers and allies that will deepen and strengthen all of our campaigning for years to come

We have 5 weeks left and not one day to lose to go as big as possible. Click to pledge now and Avaaz will only process the pledge if we raise enough:

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $2

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $4

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $8

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $16

YES, I'LL PLEDGE $32

To pledge an amount other than the ones listed above, click here.

Climate change threatens all of us. And in that way, it brings all of us together in a shared cause. Our obstacles are not just the short-sightedness of profit-hungry oil companies and the politicians they buy, but also our own willingness and choice to hope, and to act, before it's too late. Let's make that choice right now, and from it, build a movement to save the world.

Avaaz.org is a 38-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

"Republican leaders and numerous conservative news sites deny the existence of man-made climate change and promulgate the fiction that there is little agreement among scientists on the matter. The reason: To admit that climate change is at least partially caused by human behavior would require action to curtail greenhouse gases. And only government can enforce such action. But that approach flies in the face of an anti-government ideology that has permeated much of the Republican Party."

Ahhhh yessss saftey in the daily grind. Got-cha. Many live there exclusively - down in the rut of the same old same old different day. No chance of getting disturbed - just - day - after day - after - day of the same old drudge - and then ya die. No muss - no - fuss.

I know - in 1st grade ( 1964 ) we were learning about and discussing pollution - carbon pollution - they even had us read a short story about a school room where there was a civil alert siren - and - the teacher told every one to remember their drills and to take a deep breath and hold it until the all clear was sounded - and one child took up the naration as he/she (?) held their breath and watched as one by one the other kids couldn't any longer and one by one those other class mates died - as - today was NOT a drill.

The last ice age happened in 6 months. 6 months for the planet to unleash an army of apartment-building-size ice blocks across Europe and the United States. It was a climate tipping point where the balance is knocked completely out of control and threatens the survival of everything -- and three more tipping points exactly like it are on the verge of happening.

It's our "holy shit" climate moment according to a leading NASA scientist, and only a holy shit massive coordinated day of action response, right now, can change the future we're facing.

One agreement with common sense steps to end dirty energy can save us. That's why the UN has called an urgent climate meeting in just over 100 days with all major world leaders — if we greet them on September 21st with the largest ever global climate mobilisation in history we can break through the walls of mega coal, oil, and business that prevent even the best politicians from doing what is right.

There's no way to get around how big a task this is. But together, each small action will add up into a millions-strong movement that literally drowns out the opposition and gives our leaders the best reason to break free and build a hopeful, clean and green future. Click below to join in:

"Tipping points" are feedback loops, where climate change feeds back on itself and causes rapidly accelerating, catastrophic consequences. Right now, methane gas that is 25 times worse for global warming than CO2 is frozen in our ice. But as the ice melts, the gas leaks, causing more melting and each melt loses us another layer of reflective ice shield that we rely on to keep the planet cool, more methane and less ice means more warming still, and everything starts to spin out of control. And that's just one example… it's why scientists are yelling from the rooftops that we have to act now.

We actually have the tools and the plan we need to make sure we don't cross into a world where tipping points destroy us. And while it will take global cooperation on a bigger scale than ever before, our 36 million-strong movement already has the people power necessary to move leaders from every country to take the first steps. Just days ago, the United States and China announced serious new plans to curb their pollution — momentum is building ahead of next year's critical Paris climate summit where a deal could be inked, and in just over 100 days we can take it up a notch further.

Taking to the streets in a record setting show of power and coordination is one of the most effective ways to create change -- from the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa to civil rights in the US, it's sometimes been the only way. This is our chance to bring that power to the most important issue of our time: survival and a thriving future for our families, and their families and the generations of people to come. Click below to be a part of it all:

We know we can do this… and do it big. When our community was just 3 million people we held 3,000 actions on the same day to protect our planet. We're now 36 million strong, ten times the size! Imagine what we can achieve together now...

With so much hope for our future,

Emma, Iain, Lisa, Ricken, Alice, Emily, Sayeeda, Uilleam and the rest of the Avaaz team

Avaaz.org is a 36-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Incredible news -- even with an April snowstorm on the way, hundreds of Minnesotans from across the state made it to the State Capitol on Earth Day to support clean energy and jobs!1

Thanks to thousands of messages from Sierra Club supporters and hundreds joining the Clean Energy & Jobs Day of Action at the Capitol, our state legislators are hearing that Minnesotans care about clean energy. But our work is not done -- this legislation still faces critical votes as soon as next week!

We have an opportunity to strengthen the state's renewable energy standard to 40 percent by 2030; make Minnesota a leader in solar energy by enacting a solar energy standard; and save consumers money by improving energy efficiency and making it easier to generate local power.

These policies will take Minnesota further down the road to a clean energy future that provides good jobs and protects the environment for generations to come. But we need your help.

At Monday's rally, Governor Dayton told the crowd, "We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our children, and we owe it to our grandchildren to look for ecologically sustainable, environmentally renewable sources of energy, and if we put our ingenuity together we'll find it."

WHO: You, your friends, Sierra Club activists and Angelenos and supporters across the country!

WHAT: Livestream of a major announcement by Mayor Villaraigosa, Al Gore, and our Executive Director Michael Brune to end LA's reliance on dirty coal.

WHEN: Friday, March 22 at 11:00 a.m. PT

WHERE: Watch from the comfort of your desk or couch via your internet-enabled computer. If you are in LA, join us and watch the announcement in person at the LADWP Headquaters located at 111 N Hope St, Los Angeles, CA 90012 [Map].

Los Angeles gets forty percent of its energy from out-of-state dirty coal. Moving beyond coal will make LA the clear leader in fighting climate change. LA's utility is on its way to cutting emissions sixty percent below 1990 levels -- roughly 8.5 times the Kyoto Protocol standard! Bascially it's like taking all 2 milllion registered vehicles in LA off the road. This is amazing!

Without visionary leadership from Mayor Villaraigosa and the hard work of thousands this would never have happened.

LA's victory over coal may mark the turning point for California and the entire country in the transition from the dirty fuels of the past to the clean energy of today and sets a new bar for what is possible in the transition from coal to clean energy!

Damn if only there was/were alternatives that could be demonstrated/shown to the public - something to show how unnecessary fossil fuels really are - hmmmmmm ( Hydrogen; Nature's Fuel - YouTube ) hmmmmmm - and the endangered fossil fuel billionaires? ummm why is it that "THEY" have not transitioned yet? I mean aren't "they" in the best strategic position monetarily to do so?

Their money should somehow go to those unemployed from fossil fuel industry.

[ EDIT ] Retraining/education into like say clean energy processes technology employment? Ready them to take advantage of the growing necessity to create and use clean energy in industry and throughout all of society?

EDIT -> Because surely fossil fuel workers can be retrained - can't they? - I mean is anyone? a one and done use/prospect? I say not - NO - humanity is very adaptable - endlessly? - well it "can" be hard to tell sometimes like when society seemingly gets stuck on stupid ( suicidal ) = fossil fuel use when there are clean alternatives.

OH I have no doubt that they already are strategically prepared that they even have some small (?) thing going in a shell company sort of way - ready to massively expand overnight on their command. But in the meantime - they are gonna rape the world for as much money as they can - prior to the world really waking up and finally forcing them to stop out of necessity.

If you eat Animals: YOU are the problem: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes

Global warming poses one of the most serious threats to the global environment ever faced in human history. Yet by focusing entirely on carbon dioxide emissions, major environmental organizations have failed to account for published data showing that other gases are the main culprits behind the global warming we see today. As a result, they are neglecting what might be the most effective strategy for reducing global warming in our lifetimes: advocating a vegetarian diet.

The environmental community has focused its efforts almost exclusively on abating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Domestic legislative efforts concentrate on raising fuel economy standards, capping CO2 emissions from power plants, and investing in alternative energy sources. Recommendations to consumers also focus on CO2: buy fuel-efficient cars and appliances, and minimize their use. ,

This is a serious miscalculation. Data published by Dr. James Hansen and others show that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. Though this may sound like the work of global warming skeptics, it isn’t: Hansen is Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has been called “a grandfather of the global warming theory.” He is a longtime supporter of action against global warming, cited by Al Gore and often quoted by environmental organizations, who has argued against skeptics for subverting the scientific process. His results are generally accepted by global warming experts, including bigwigs like Dr. James McCarthy, co-chair of the International Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II.

...
Nevertheless, the fact remains that sources of non-CO2 greenhouse gases are responsible for virtually all the global warming we’re seeing, and all the global warming we are going to see for the next fifty years. If we wish to curb global warming over the coming half century, we must look at strategies to address non-CO2 emissions. The strategy with the most impact is vegetarianism.

Methane and Vegetarianism
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane.

With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive “lagoons” used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists’ for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.

The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

Advantages of Vegetarianism over CO2 Reduction
In addition to having the advantage of immediately reducing global warming, a shift away from methane-emitting food sources is much easier than cutting carbon dioxide.

First, there is no limit to reductions in this source of greenhouse gas that can be achieved through vegetarian diet. In principle, even 100% reduction could be achieved with little negative impact. In contrast, similar cuts in carbon dioxide are impossible without devastating effects on the economy. Even the most ambitious carbon dioxide reduction strategies fall short of cutting emissions by half.

Second, shifts in diet lower greenhouse gas emissions much more quickly than shifts away from the fossil fuel burning technologies that emit carbon dioxide. The turnover rate for most ruminant farm animals is one or two years, so that decreases in meat consumption would result in almost immediate drops in methane emissions. The turnover rate for cars and power plants, on the other hand, can be decades. Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today.

Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth.

Third, efforts to cut carbon dioxide involve fighting powerful and wealthy business interests like the auto and oil industries. Environmental groups have been lobbying for years to make fuel-efficient SUVs available or phase out power plants that don’t meet modern environmental standards without success. At the same time, vegetarian foods are readily available, and cuts in agricultural methane emissions are achievable at every meal.

Also, polls show that concern about global warming is widespread, and environmental activists often feel helpless to do anything about it. Unless they happen to be buying a car or major appliance, most people wanting to make a difference are given little to do aside from writing their legislators and turning off their lights. Reducing or eliminating meat consumption is something concerned citizens can do every day to help the planet.

Finally, it is worth noting that reductions in this source of greenhouse gas have many beneficial side effects for the environment. Less methane results in less tropospheric ozone, a pollutant damaging to human health and agriculture. Moreover, the same factory farms responsible for these methane emissions also use up most of the country’s water supply, and denude most of its wilderness for rangeland and growing feed. Creating rangeland to feed western nations’ growing appetite for meat has been a major source of deforestation and desertification in third world countries. Factory farm waste lagoons are a leading source of water pollution in the U.S. Indeed, because of animal agriculture’s high demand for fossil fuels, the average American diet is far more CO2-polluting than a plant-based one.

Recommendations
Organizations should consider making advocating vegetarianism a major part of their global warming campaigns. At a minimum, environmental advocates should mention vegetarianism in any information about actions individuals can take to address global warming.
Government policy should encourage vegetarian diets. Possible mechanisms include an environmental tax on meat similar to one already recommended on gasoline, a shift in farm subsidies to encourage plant agriculture over animal agriculture, or an increased emphasis on vegetarian foods in government-run programs like the school lunch program or food stamps.

It would seem that plant based whole foods scares many people in spite of the heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia, auto immune diseases and a host of other dire conditions brought about by our recent Western dietary patterns.

Communities living on plant based nutrition have very low incidence of these diseases.

Your comments only apply to factory farming and the techniques they use like feeding the cows corn. While it is true that the meat industry is responsible for both rain forest deforestation and the litany of repercussions of factory farming it is not the production of meat itself that causes the destruction it is the techniques used. the best farming techniques are biodiverse integrated traditional techniques enhanced with science.

turn the military and the army corps of engineers loose on america enhancing ecosystems for resource production and restroring degraded ecosystems, building autonomous buildings, smart developments, and green infrastructure.

great idea - as my hockey line mate would say - "you have told me the what, now tell me the how" - i think we could get most of the population to go along with that idea. especially if we had a president pushing and educating. i believe that there are plenty of good ideas that we could get those from ows and the teaparty to agree on. i guess thus the term 99%. too bad we do not have the leadership

We own a utility scale solar construction company. Build projects all over the country. You are preaching to the choir. The Feds need to fund this stuff big time. And now. Like a new manhattan project.

"An 8.6 kWh lithium-ion solar energy storage system for residential and commercial use has been launched by JuiceBox Energy. It is designed to work with grid-tied or off-grid solar systems. It features a system controller so the battery can be used as back-up power to a grid, thus enabling peak shifting and demand charge reduction. Notice these capabilities go beyond mere storage."

"This is why the public's right to know about environmental hazards is so important. An informed public can press both public officials and private firms to curtail pollution and to reduce environmental disparities."

Yes the time scales are long and man's measurements have largely arising out of deduction. Various changes in climate one would suspect have related causal events or combinations of conditions.

Once oceans were formed, that the mass of water that we are familiar with, would dampen the rate of change sinking heat energy. Speculation and discussion about rates of change will continue to evolve as more evidence is uncovered.

Time lines involved for rapid warming or cooling are also controlled by the various feedback systems. There may be a limit to how fast the climate can change without occurance of a catastrophic events such as collision of an large asteroid with Earth.

Climate change is a consequence of a complex interaction of causal conditions.

Yes, complex interaction of causal conditions. There may be a limit to how fast the climate can change without occurrence of catastrophic events, and there may not be. Discovering more evidence is something I fully support.

The rate of co2 rise is increasing exponentially. You surely know what this means.

There is approximately a 20 year lag between man's actions and climate consequences so one may expect the rate of climate change to accelerate in spite of any immediate effective curbs mankind is able effect on his reduction of carbon emissions, deforestation, fossil resource mining and resultant devastation and pollution, exponential population explosion, reduction of plant species variety, poisoning of soils with fertilisers adding to the 2 + % of fertile soil being lost per year worldwide and the increasing sickness of western nations both health wise and culturally. Increase use of animal products in the diet is economically, ecologically without sustainability, and lead to the crash even more rapidly.

But no curbs are being effectively implemented.

Your quoted average of 2 feet a century is not the rate over the last 8000 years leading up to the very recent acceleration of man's exponential population growth coupled with the use of coal and oil over the last 200 years. As this fossil fuel use has also grown exponentially and energy harvesting has become an insatiable drive in human culture, the pattern of sea level rise has changed from near equilibrium to a new melting pattern which has accompanied heating of the oceans coincident with CO2 rise in the atmosphere linked with fossil fuel being burnt.

Also the rise in CO2 levels equates closely with the imbalance expected with burning of fossilcarbon deposits laid down in past eras and consequent with reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere during those times.

The natural processes of CO2 reduction in the atmosphere in recent eras are largely linked with life forms capturing CO2 and storing it in living cells which then become a part fo the surface layers of the planet. [coal and oil being two forms of concentrated carbon sequestration.]

In modrn times we have stripped away a significant part of the forests which have taken part in this process so much less CO2 is removed from the atmosphere as a consequence.

Added to that European stock have been the primary movers in instigating mining of coal for burning followed by extraction of oil for burning.

The balance of CO2 in the atmosphere evident in very recent times leading up to mans exponential short term exploitation of fossil sequestration of carbon deposits, has shown CO2 increase in the atmosphere commensurate with fossil fuel burning and forest reduction.

There has been a lot of work done on this which remains consistent with known and understood predictions which have taken into account the lag in time expected.

While there are many and varied alternative theory thrown up, they do not explain what is happening when rigourously analysied.
If a more convenient explanation of CO2 rise was found to be tenable then rigorous scientific scrutiny would be applied with comprehensive peer review and publications.

Check the CO2 rise in the atmosphere, ocean temperature rise and acidification, pollution caused by massive scourge of plastic particles interfering with animal and human hormonal system, human population explosion and energy consumption, depletion of natural resources including fertile soil which is disappearing at a rate of 2 + % per year and thousands of other new developments diminishing hope for future generations.

You can ignore all of that and pin your blind hopes on denialist propaganda but the weight of evidence is enormous. Common sense surely must hit home at some point but it is already too late to change the path to massive change which is already rolling.

Put a group of rats in an area which is finite with a finite amount of food and see what happens over time.

Did you know there used to be an ice sheet over a large part of North America, extending as far south as New York and Chicago. It was over a mile thick in places. What caused it to melt? The Co2 emitted from cave man's camp fires?

The scientist that have assembled the picture on past climate are the very ones warning of the man made warming.

Long term climate patterns are a fascinating and the more mankind explores the evidence, the greater are the questions that arise. Perhaps the future climatologists wil have a detailed picture of the interactions affecting climate if mankind lasts long enough, which is the concern held by many.

The precautionary principle regarding climate appear to be denied to the world by a small group of controlling wealthy power brokers. Economics short term for the purposes of their wealth harvesting seems to take precedence.

The idea that burning of fossil fuel, stripping of forests, heating of the ocean and producing multifarious changes in all written off to "progress" without unwanted consequence, defies logic and defies scientific reporting observable effects.

The basic principle that you cannot change one thing alone without other changes happening stands firm.

If a person wants to believe a particular line of understanding and is resistant to accepting a change, then that may be a function of their makeup. Not all can weigh up evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. For some it is a painful process to change undertanding.

I have avoided posting numerous links and the wider picture is the best starting point.

Perhaps you may see that the scale and effect of a mere thousand or two "cavemen" at the late stone age era could burn fires at will with little effect due to the insignificant magnitude of their omissions and the vast biosphere very much intact.

Man's growth in numbers in recent times is over three million fold that "caveman" population with environment resources being exploited on a very different scale of billions fold.

For example the out of control oligarchy called Monsanto produced a deadly toxic substance called PCB, traces of which is now found in living cells in every ecosystem tested. Mans impact is on a devastating scale.

Public education is sorely lacking and mis education is alive and thriving.

I am Very disappointed that China's and India's top leaders will not be attending the UN summit. They were the bones of contention at the runup to the Kyoto Treaty. The U.S. did not join it either because of their being exempted as developing countries. Now both have grown a lot in their climate footprints, especially China which has already exceeded the U.S. a few years ago.

With the largest populations on Earth, China and India should not tuck their heads in their turtle shells and become "forever emerging countries."

Reducing the usage of coal by China and India is probably the most effective method of reducing CO2 emissions as well as improving the air quality and stopping the adverse health consequences on their largest populations on Earth.

I can sincerely say this is the most important petition we've ever done.

Sorry for the language, but one top scientist just warned that we are all "f*cked" if global warming releases gigantic amounts of methane gas from the arctic tundra. The UN knows this, and is bringing world leaders to New York for an emergency summit.

Hundreds of thousands of us will take to the streets for the People’s Climate March just before the summit. Let’s make sure that on that day we deliver the largest Avaaz petition ever, for the only solution: mobilize the world to shift to 100% clean energy. Add your voice, and forward this widely:

Whether it's the 'arctic methane bomb', the rapid acidification of our oceans, or apocalyptic flooding, climate change is the biggest threat humanity is facing, and we need the biggest petition ever to meet it. The number of us who sign will be read out to all leaders at the summit, published in hundreds of media articles, and be delivered by our marches worldwide.

100% clean energy is a realistic goal. Already, 20% of the world's electricity comes from clean energy, and solar power is cheaper than coal in many countries! We just need to get our leaders to agree to put our foot on the accelerator.

We're gearing up for the largest climate mobilization in history on September 21. Already hundreds of events are organised and hundreds of thousands of people signed up. But the events are designed to deliver our petition to decision makers. Let's make it the largest call to action ever. Join now and tell everyone:

Support the Avaaz Community!
We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way.

Donate Now

Avaaz.org is a 38-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

The EPA has issued new rules on limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants in the US, and the clock is ticking to give feedback. No surprise -- Big Coal is trying to kill these rules. So the EPA needs to hear from you today!

The proposed rules are an important step forward since power plants are the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. The rules have already provoked a huge backlash from the fossil fuels industry and its allies, which say that the EPA is going too far.

However, the reality is the EPA’s new rules don’t reduce emissions fast enough and don’t go far enough to limit natural gas, biomass, and burning garbage as energy sources. They also need to do more to protect our poorest and most vulnerable communities.

Join Green Americans from across the country in letting the EPA know that you support strong regulation of carbon emissions from power plants, and want them to go even further to protect our health and the health of our planet.

In less than one month, President Obama and heads of state from around the world will meet in New York to decide our climate future. We've been working around the clock with our allies to make sure we grab the attention of President Obama, other world leaders and the global media in September.

Not all of us can make it to New York City in September. But all of us have friends, family or co-workers who can attend. Please post to Facebook, Tweet or email your personal networks about the people's climate march.

People's climate march

Historic people's movements like the March on Washington involved thousands of dedicated activists recruiting friends and family to attend. This is our opportunity to all be a part of the largest mobilization on climate in the history of the planet.

Please ask your personal network to RSVP for the climate march in New York City this September via Facebook, Twitter or Email.

That is not from Occupy. OWS is basically dead. There are no more general assemblies where people make decisions together. Occupy Network Team is one person. Jart. She uses the Occupy to hide the fact that it's a jartocracy.

Occupy died years ago, the founders themselves mentioned this. One founder even went as far as to say that occupy needed to die as fast as possible so we could move to other strategies.

Jart will be the first to tell you Occupy is dead. She helped to kill it by using anti-Occupy strategies like taking over the twitter feed and this forum. She wants a jartocracy, not a world where people decide things together.

Get with the times. Cover that fat sweaty naked body and get out of your therapeutic bed and go into the real world for a change.

I don't love OHBummer. And currently those in office who claim to be republican - ARE - FAR WORSE - than those currently claiming to be democrat. So currently the best course of action would be to finish destroying the so called GOP/Tea Party - they themselves look to be trying real REAL hard to commit political suicide in the 1st place.

I dont see much of a difference between the supporters of each of them.

Everyone hates the living hell out of the other one, while giving their own a pass. There is going to be a ton of Dems at this protest that think if only they gave those specific politicians more power in this system, the clouds would part and the sun would shine, etc. Its straight up strange.

What I would suggest is that if pollution is really an issue, that we must all decide to not only remove every single politician from office, but also start living our lives in radically different ways.

I don't see either one happening anytime soon, and I'll be honest, I'm probably not going to change my own personal habits anytime soon voluntarily.

Carlson said that when the planet has enough of us, it will get rid of us like it does everything else.

Personally I think the entire system is a sell out, but I would settle for at least voting in normal people who are outside of the parties of this point.

WE DO NOT NEED REPRESENTATIVES. Because we have more power than we think. We can change things ourselves, we don't have to pander to others in order to change things. Voting changes nothing. Everyone in office is corrupt. The system is flawed, so changing the actors means little.

What we need to do is change things ourselves, or directly help those that are changing things. It's not so much about protest as it is about being active and proactive. Help a young inventor, or work at inventing something yourself. Instead of protesting the government for it to do what you want when you know it won't anyways, volunteer for one day helping a company do solar panels, or volunteer at your schools science club, or work on an invention yourself.

No, you really are not. You're a naked sweaty pig in a therapeutic bed. You stalk me all the time, that's the only common thing you have with a God.

What opportunity? There hasn't been any. You don't think building a bridge to the ground is a good thing?

This march is not an occupy activity. it is a jart activity. Show me a GA that voted this as an occupy activity. I believe occupy should be a community project. People deciding together what things will be done.

Today’s a big day, but with your help, a month from today will be massive.

As of today, we are officially one month out from what could be a defining moment for the climate movement. On September 21st, thousands of people are going to flood the streets of New York City ahead of the landmark UN Climate Summit -- and we need you to join us.

Scientists have been sounding the alarm for years, but now a look out the window is all you need to know something is seriously wrong. Out my own window, I see a California that's stricken with the worst drought in the past 100 years after the state's warmest year on record. It’s easy to feel hopeless, especially given the state of politics, but I become hopeful when I think about marching in the streets with so many activists and communities from around the country.

Oil Change International has been hard at work behind the scenes making sure the march is well organized, but the only way it’ll become a politically transformative moment is with you and all your friends there. The People’s Climate March is a moment to stand up and be counted...for our families, our friends, our communities, and our children’s future.

Already, there is transportation being organized to travel to New York from every corner of the country and ways to get involved even if you can’t make it in person. RSVP to the march and let your friends and family know why they should be there too.

We can't make this stuff up. Exxon has just announced plans to partner with Rosneft, a massive Russian oil company that's been the target of U.S. sanctions, on a $700 million oil well in the Arctic.*

It's not enough that Exxon and friends are wrecking our climate, polluting our oceans, and taking $20 billion of our tax dollars to do it — now the biggest oil companies in the world are flouting U.S. sanctions.**

Of course, Exxon is also ignoring the fact that there's essentially no way to contain an oil spill in the Arctic. And of course Big Oil and their Big Russian buddies are totally ignoring climate change and the need to divest from fossil fuels immediately.

But this latest outrage makes it personal. Putin went as far as to sing the praises of Exxon, calling it "Russia’s old and reliable partner."*

But there's a chance that we can use bad news to do something good for the planet. A lot of people in Congress want to send Russia a stronger message over the Ukraine. And President Obama is about to head to the U.N. for a big round of talks on what world leaders can do to stop global warming. One of the most important ideas, endorsed by former heads of the U.N. and many international experts, is to end state subsidies of fossil fuel companies.

So let's help Congress and the President connect the dots: Big Oil is trashing our climate, and working with our enemies. These are not our friends — in fact, I think it's fair to say Exxon hates America. And we can surely agree that we should not be giving them $20 billion a year of our tax money.

Corp(se)oRATions care nothing about politics nor do they care about the environment - they do not care about nations/countries - they do not care about human life or any other form of life. They only care about what they want and they will do any and everything they can to get what they want.

This is yet another example of greed. It's greed that caused anthropogenic global warming to begin with. It's greed that prevents the media from giving this issue the attention (and truth) it deserves. It's greed that prevents any real progress on the issue. It's greed that prevents ALL of the rich and many ordinary people from taking the issue seriously. I would never ask any one person to eliminate their carbon foot print entirely. But I do think it's reasonable to ask that everyone try to keep it modest. At least by Western standards. We should be willing to make the occasional sacrifice for the good of society and most living things around the world. For our activity has been causing actual pain, suffering, misery, and death around the world. What's done is done but it's time to do a little less. A little less clear cutting. A little less building and expanding. A little less racing. A little less recreational travel. A little less of everything that causes anthropogenic global warming. It shouldn't be that big of a deal.

By the way, this is another reason why I hate celebrities. Remember a few years back when a bunch of them showed up at an awards show in little hybrids? Well, it was just another Hollywood trend. It had nothing whatsoever to do with love of the Earth or even respect for nature. They did it because at the time, they were under more pressure to do so. Since then, the polls have shown less concern for anthropogenic global warming. So, that's it. The Hollywood pigs, for the most part, have gone right back to showing up in stretch limos and super exotic sports cars.

Damn if only there were some way to alleviate these massive leaks of extreme green house gasses - hmmmmm - I know - put an open ended cylinder over the hole ummm abandoned well and light a match and throw it in the top? No no no Heh silly me...................I mean methane doesn't burn does it?

EDIT -> Granted the major portion of the program was a feel good explanation of how the world operates. But at the very end ( the last ten minutes ? ) it finally touches on our ( humanities ) role as affecting how the world functions. Where the program ended - IS ( in my opinion ) - Where the program should have started and then expanded upon - OUR screwing-up of the operation of our environment/world.

EDIT continued -> The Earth's processes was stated as a complex set of interactions - stating that with an explanation of how the earth functions - and then following up with how our ( humanities/Industries ) pollution then feeds and distributes it's pollution/poison through this very same natural process - I feel would have been good in showing that no one is left out of the toxic effects - this also goes for it showing how the toxic/poisonous/pollution practices feed into global climate change as well. This I feel ( education of processes and interaction ) is where Koch might shoot himself in the foot with his support of NOVA - if people truly stop and think - then they will see the connection.

Huh - an interesting section on dust and dispersal - I wonder how they would liken it to the dumping fields of toxic coal dust and subsequent movement/distribution by the earths natural processes?

NARRATOR: Plankton may be key to life, but they themselves don’t live long. MODIS shows how, in just 72 hours, a bloom can rapidly weaken and fade. All the plankton that have not been eaten die and sink into the abyss. They take their precious minerals with them all the way back to the ocean floor. Here they will remain for millennia, a thick carpeting of tiny carcasses half a mile deep. Some of the minerals may ultimately be recycled, some may emerge through hydrothermal vents again, millions of years from now, but some plankton, through yet another extraordinary chain of events, will deliver their precious cargo of nutrients, not just to life in the ocean, but also to life on land.

Half a world away from the coast of Peru, where plankton bloom, lies the Sahara Desert in North Africa. The Sahara is enormous. It makes up a tenth of the African continent. It’s one of the driest and dustiest places on Earth. Surprisingly, the remains of ancient plankton are here, hidden in this arid landscape.

It is May, the hottest month of all. Camel herders travel through one of the most exposed regions of the Sahara: the Bodele Depression. Six thousand years ago, this was covered by the world’s largest freshwater lake. The floor of the lake is covered with the ancient remains of plankton, called diatomite, laid down in a much earlier age, when an ocean covered the region.

With its eye on the earth, from 400 miles above, Landsat 7 is one of the latest generations of satellites studying the composition of rocks that make up our planet. It sweeps the Bodele, producing these high-resolution pictures in multiple wavelengths of visible light. The white expanse is the diatomite on the bed of the lake.

CHARLIE BRISTOW ( Birkbeck, University of London): The size of the lake is over a thousand kilometers long and 600 kilometers wide. But, with a satellite image, we can see the whole extent of the basin on a series of images and visualize that, on a computer, in a matter of minutes.

NARRATOR: The satellite image analysis shows over 24,000 square miles of sediment, all of it diatomite.

CHARLIE BRISTOW: We can map where the diatomite sediment is on the floor of the lake.

NARRATOR: The diatomite from the plankton is a rich source of phosphorous, an element needed by all living things to produce energy. But for this nutrient to re-enter the chain of life, it must first embark on a long journey that can be seen from space.

The journey begins here on the ancient lakebed in the Sahara. The wind sweeps up a few flakes of diatomite into the air; the flakes fracture into a fine powder and are carried off by the wind; a dust storm builds. Twenty-two thousand miles above, the European weather satellite METEOSAT 8 looks down from its geostationary orbit. It records a daily pulse of dust rising off the Bodele Depression. Here, it’s visible as a whitish dust cloud, lifting from the desert, with clockwork regularity, at noon, each day.

CHARLIE BRISTOW: Although the individual particles of dust are minute—they’re hundredths or thousandths of a millimeter in diameter—there are such vast clouds of this dust that you can see it on satellite images.

NARRATOR: The dust cloud is over a hundred stories high and 200 miles wide. From here it will head west on an epic journey.

Seen from space, the dust is blown across Africa. At the Atlantic coast it’s drawn up high into the sky. This simulation, based on satellite data, shows how prevailing winds carry the dust cloud west and south, 3,000 miles across the Atlantic. As much as 7,000 tons of dust are airborne at any one time.

The destination is set by the winds: South America and the Amazon.

CHARLIE BRISTOW: We’re taking literally thousands of tons of this dust, which is containing phosphate, and exporting that from the Bodele. The wind is carrying it out across the Atlantic to fertilize the Amazon.

"Sea surface temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem during 2012 were the highest recorded in 150 years, according to the latest Ecosystem Advisory issued by NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). These high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are the latest in a trend of above average temperature seen during the spring and summer seasons, and part of a pattern of elevated temperatures occurring in the Northwest Atlantic, but not seen elsewhere in the ocean basin over the past century."

That's especially true when it comes to the dirty emissions from cars and fuel that affect our children's lungs each and every day. We're very glad that the EPA has proposed a new "Tier 3 program". Not the most memorable name for such an important rule. But Tier 3 will set new vehicle emissions standards and lower the sulfur content of gasoline.

DIRTY: Soot--particulate matter--is one of the most dangerous types of pollution. Soot triggers asthma attacks, bronchitis, heart attacks, and other types of lung disease.

CLEAN: Soot from vehicles will be 70% more tightly regulated

Bottom line: Cars and trucks will be cleaner and more efficient--at a cost of a penny a gallon.

Parents--who spend more than enough time idling in traffic--welcome these rules. And so does the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of Global Automakers and the United Auto Workers. Our most important health groups also support this rule--because they know that it costs far more to care for sick Americans than to clean our air.

Well, the way it's going, we will have to wait until they start building domes over their gated "communities", at that point, we may be able to shove some pipes under their dome and fill it up with diesel fumes, or something else of their own manufacture.

The dirty energy lobby is waging an all-out assault on the clean energy revolution — and they're working through the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to push model legislation to gut state renewable energy standards.

With companies like Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil sitting on ALEC's energy, environment and agriculture task force, they are trying to kill clean energy in America.

" After the ice age, they found, global average temperatures rose until they reached a plateau between 7550 and 3550 BC. Then a long-term cooling trend set in, reaching its lowest temperature extreme between ad 1450 and 1850."

"Since then, temperatures have been increasing at a dramatic clip: from the first decade of the twentieth century to now, global average temperatures rose from near their coldest point since the ice age to nearly their warmest, Marcott and his team report today in Science."

So-temperatures started rising after the last ice age, reach a plateau, then cooled. Now they are rising again, AND they are ALMOST back up to what they were prior to the "Little Ice Age". It's almost like scientists are SHOCKED that an earth coming out of a full on Ice Age warms slower and an earth coming out of a "little" ice age warms faster! Like they cannot fathom that more ice=takes longer to get warm, and less ice=much faster.

"The temperature trends during most of the post-ice-age period match those expected from natural factors such as the long-term variation in the tilt of Earth’s axis, says Marcott. But in the past century and a half, industrial emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have increased — which helps to explain why global temperatures have risen so quickly in recent decades, he suggests."

"Global average temperatures are now higher than they have been for about 75% of the past 11,300 years, a study suggests. "

25% of the past 11,300 years (2,825 years) it's been this hot or hotter.

AND all of those years were prior to a 4,000 year span between 7550 and 3550 BC. I wonder what caused things to be so hot back then? I wonder if those causes have ceased to function.

“Prior to this study, researchers could only guess whether global temperatures had exceeded the warmest part of the present interglacial period,” says Darrell Kaufman, a geologist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. The latest findings show that the recent high temperatures are not necessarily the warmest, but they are unusually high, he notes."

Recent high temps are not the warmest, even if they are unusually high. And as the title of the article demonstrates-

You never did say how your court case against Mother Nature is coming along.

If you can't get the percentage you're looking for, will your case against her still hold up, or will the doubt created still be enough so that your ego isn't bruised while you continue to urge the poisoning of the planet, as long as there is profit involved?

The game you play, isn't just disingenuous, it's foolhardy and downright dangerous to every living thing on the planet.

So if you don't mind, while you play your game, the rest of us are going to accept the whole reality and not get hung up in the isolated details you keep getting hung up on.

It's a shame really. It makes me wonder if you aren't one of the myriad agenda21 nut bags running around here.

I could ask the same of you-since there is no way (currently) to know, what happens if, in the future, we find out the actual percentages and your case against the evil oil industry/human race doesn't hold up? Will you continue to claim that we're poisoning the planet as long as it suits your agenda?

"the rest of us are going to accept the whole reality"

HAHAHAHAHA. The "facts" in the article you linked to become "meaningless facts in isolation" when they are pointed out to you. And yet, YOU linked to them as if they HAD meaning of some kind.

The "whole reality" is that you REFUSE to accept any reality that doesn't fit your agenda. I guess "it just goes to follow".

About 10 years ago, I was reading a paper (remember those?), and there in the business section, was a small one or two paragraph press release from GE, explaining that their board had "decided" that they as a corporation could now accept global warming, because they had figured out how to make a profit from it.

I looked at the lovely young blond sitting next to me and said this.

" If you think news about global warming is BS now, you haven't seen anything yet."

Not long before that announcement I had noticed stronger opposition to the scientific findings.

They have been growing ever since, and now you have the brothers Koch highly proactive in their donations to producing even more.

You can pretend that's not real, but it is.

Now would you like to explain what you are going to do if you get the percentages you keep asking for?

Do you know how much money (profit) Al Gore has made hawking global warming? And yet he's flying around in his big jet and building mansions right on the shoreline....weird....for a guy who cares so much about the planet and screams that the oceans are going to overflow.

Do you know how much money (profit) countries would make selling "carbon credits"? (And how hilarious would it be to earn billions off of something that just might be occurring naturally or not really affecting the planet as touted!)

You act as if the Koch brothers and the oil industry are the ONLY ONES interested in making money. How many organizations on the "left" of the issue have realized, and would continue to realize profits if they can demonize the other side? Are you that naive? Do you actually think that evil and corruption CARES which side it's on?? For crying out loud, YOU link to "scientific findings" and then when I point out that those FINDINGS do not say what you want/need/think they say, YOU produce "stronger opposition to the scientific findings"!!! You're doing exactly what you want to point fingers at OTHERS for doing.

You think the Tides Foundation and billionaires on the left haven't been contributing all kinds of millions of dollars into the propaganda machine? YOU can pretend it's not real, but it is. You're only looking at half the picture my friend. And anyone who can read at all, knows that.

I'm going to watch and read and decide for MYSELF what the truth is, because that's what I'm after-the truth. It's not about percentages to me. It's about knowing ALL the facts before I go deciding who or what is to blame.

This doesn't mean I support pollution or evil or the Koch's or anyone else on the right. It means that the truth matters to me. And in this day and age of lie upon lie upon lie, that means I have to actually do the work MYSELF-rather than just believing the stuff I like hearing and discarding the stuff I don't. But if that's the price required so that I'm not beholdin to or "bound to" any particular party or idea or position other than the TRUTH, it's worth it to me.

"Conclusions: The Marcott et al. 2013 study is nothing more than rehashed alarmists' faux-science that will be undoubtedly eviscerated by statistical and climate experts, respectively. To rebuild their credibility, green-sharia scientists would be best advised to avoid promoting obviously flawed blender-statistical fakery that produce easily refuted bogus hockey sticks.

Here's the thing, I assume the "audience at home" can read and comprehend all by themselves and doesn't need you or me to interpret anything for them. I'm sure they'll have no problem understanding that Marcott ADMITTED that the data in the paper is "not robust" and if that term is unfamiliar to them, they're smart enough to look it up. I'm also sure if they want to know more, they can click on the links and read the articles and decide for themselves what sounds real and what doesn't.

Stop insulting the intelligence of everyone who reads posts here by trying to do their thinking for them.

There's one thing I don't like and it's when you state that Global Warming caused Hurricane Katrina. I don't think we have scientific evidence to prove this. This undermines our scientific approach. We already have plenty of evidence for Global Warming, we don't have to make stuff up on the side. This doesn't help our cause.

Last June, President Obama outlined a simple test to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline should be approved. Would it increase greenhouse gas pollution? If so, it must be rejected.

That’s an important test, one that should be applied to all of the energy decisions facing our country. And that’s where a new report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) comes in.

Just a few days ago the GAO found that lifting the crude oil export ban could increase carbon emissions. This is a crucial finding, but the oil industry spin machine is trying to keep it quiet.

Rumors have been circulating for a while that the Obama administration is considering relaxing this regulation that has been on the books for decades. But what the GAO has found -- that doing so could increase greenhouse gas emissions -- should put an end to any of that kind of speculation.

According to our latest research, lifting the ban could release a massive 4.4 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere when burned, which is the equivalent of annual emissions of 1,252 U.S. coal power plants.

Lifting the export ban would do two things: pad Big Oil’s profit-margins and drive climate change further towards the brink. It clearly fails the President’s own climate test and it’s time for Obama to put his words into action by affirmatively rejecting calls to relax the crude oil export ban.

Join us in letting President Obama know we’re watching and that lifting the ban is a NO GO.

President Obama can put the brakes on Big Oil's campaign to relax crucial regulations and show that he values the people of the United States over the profits of Big Oil by saying NO to ending the crude oil export ban.

Thanks for taking action,
David Turnbull
Campaigns Director

Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Donate now

Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming barriers to that transition.

Beijing (AFP) - Swarms of hornets have killed 42 people in northwestern China in recent months, state media said Thursday, as temperatures rise and development drives the stinging insects into cities.

The terrifying attacks started in July, the official Xinhua news agency said Thursday, with 1,640 people having been stung.

Of those, 206 are being treated in hospital, it quoted the National Health and Family Planning Commission as saying.

"With the development of air-conditioning, urban landscaping and residential environment, hornets have started to migrate and relocate to cities, which has increased the probability of their hurting people," Xinhua said in a report Wednesday.

It carried a photo of a doctor examining a hospitalised patient with several large and swollen sting wounds on the legs.

It also quoted Huang Rongyao -- a senior official concerned with pest control in the city of Ankang, which has borne the brunt of the attacks -- as attributing the phenomenon to warmer-than-usual temperatures in the region.

"Furthermore, hornets are sensitive to bright colours, the smell of human sweat, alcohol, perfume, any specially scented articles and things that are sweet as well as the running of humans or animals," Huang said.

Hua Baozhen, a professor of entomology at Northwest Agriculture Forestry University, attributed the attacks mostly to a decrease in the number of the hornets' natural enemies, such as spiders and birds, due to ecological changes.

The Shaanxi Daily has said the attacks were centred on the cities of Ankang, Hanzhong and Shangluo.

CNWEST, the government-run news portal of Shaanxi province, said the provincial forestry department sent three teams of personnel to raise public awareness of hornets.

It also said that the province allocated six million yuan ($980,000) for work to prevent attacks and treat victims in the three cities.

Xinhua described the hornets as about the size of an adult thumb.
China News quoted a person working to combat them as saying they are about three to four centimetres (less than two inches) long and thousands can inhabit a single hive.

If you think Jart's forum concern is a distraction, you don't have to respond to it. I, of course, will continue to respond to whatever I choose while disregarding those who feel a need to tell others on what to comment.

is indeed directing others what to comment on. You can call it 'pleaded' or anything else you'd like but the fact ever remains that you have no place pleading or telling anyone on this forum on what to comment, ignore, or support or even on what matters. It is your consistent disingenuous manner in addressing statements that continues to infect/disrupt this forum. Had there been any sincerity to your comments, you would have simply posted on the topic of this thread rather than engaging in the distraction of involving the subject of a different thread to which you have already repeatedly commented

It is directing and as clearly shown above, you are not 'only' asking for me "to have some common decency, and respect our front line soldiers who risked arrest, (100 arrests) and injury, (pepper sprayed, roughed up), By contributing supportive comments." You are in fact making reference to an issue of another thread in combination with an issue of this thread while presuming some moral position to determine what others should be commenting on and assuming their lack of support based solely upon what comments you observe on this forum. The fact of the matter is that you are totally ignorant of what support anyone on this forum gives to any cause at any time and are therefore presumptuous in pretending to be in a position to request the support of others. The grown adults on this forum make their own decisions for their own reasons on what they should be doing and don't require your disingenuous inputs for doing anything. Your feigned concerns and show of support that has always been just that, a show, has never had any place on this forum. The forum needs you to set aside your hypocrisy, dishonesty, insincerity, and continued support of distraction/disruption and simply be for real. Can you do that? Can you post on topic without reference to the topic of another thread or attempting to determine for other grown adults what their support and comments should be?

I knew you couldn't do it. You couldn't just post on topic without making reference to an off topic issue. Even worse, you begin your reply with a blatant lie while making your usual false accusation of "(strawman!)". As anyone can still plainly read from your previous reply, "your lack of support for our cause" are indeed your words to me http://occupywallst.org/article/climate-change-real/#comment-1048258 showing that you have in fact assumed this to be. So, you can remain as preoccupied with what I do and don't comment on all you like, the rest of us have better things to do whether you know and/or approve of them or not.

"Better things"? You mean the 2 year old twinkle debate/distraction/disruption that our forum concern troll pushes?

LMFAO!!! I disagree!"

And pointing out your "lack of support" is not assuming you don't support, only shows you are currently not showing support.

(Still haven't)

In fact your trollfeeding distracts from the Climate issue and as such is the opposite of support.

Practically anything is "Better" than your preoccupation with what anyone does and doesn't comment on so your disagreement is quite hilarious especially when it's clearly seen that you've been posting on the very thread you disparage. If you think Jart's posted concern is a distraction or disruption, you didn't have to contribute to it by making any replies on that thread. But you clearly did and repeatedly so. So if you honestly actually believe that the existence of other discussions on this forum somehow distract from and even oppose support of the Climate issue, it's not only one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard but your own participation in such discussions clearly applies to you as well. However, past experience doesn't indicate that you're truly that stupid, just that dishonest. Just like the dishonesty in attempting to claim that a clear statement assuming a lack of support only meant "not showing" support. Real support is not a show. People whose support is only show preoccupy themselves with the frivolities of what others do or do not show and to that extent, distract from anything of substance.

"The desire of growing numbers of activists to engage in civil disobedience and mass disruption of "business as usual" is an extremely positive development. But tactics should not be treated in isolation from the question of how to mobilize the social forces necessary for our side to win. Though both are important, neither peaceful protest nor civil disobedience--nor "uncivil" disobedience, for that matter, will by themselves force the changes that we seek.

Our discussion of tactics should take place in the context of a discussion of social power: who and what are the social forces capable of winning fundamental reform, and beyond that, fundamental transformation of the system that causes climate catastrophe. For that, mass action in many forms--marches, pickets, blockades, occupations, sit-ins and, in particular, the mass action of the working class in the form of strikes--will play a role."

It is an endless discussion about who or what causes climate change… for some people it is like a religion… if you don´t believe you are demned in hell! Fact is, we can´t be sure! it is more likely that there is more than only one single factor that causes this effect…
But in the end it doesn´t matter at all !! We already know very well almost all is going wrong in our world, polluting our water, our air and food is killing all life on earth that’s obvious and I think we all agree in that. We must change the whole system and way of human living now, and then if climate change is man-made maybe we stop it, if not, we must find a way to live with new living conditions but we will never survive with this sick systems, ideologys and religions that only separates people and causes hate and war … in this debates it is only about who is wright and who is wrong… it is the same here with this climate debate, … it is the sick human ego… the “I am wright an you are wrong” thinking, it is useless…
Fact is climate is changing for what reason ever, and fact is this is one of many very severe Problems we will have to deal with in future! We must change the world now or it will be too late and all discussions will be for nothing …

every single one of the comments above is bold face fucking LIE. Global warming...a religion..nothing more. Shrieking hand wringing liberals are the only one who believe it. Self loathing pinheads who demand to be taxed for breathing air.

This is total horse shit! The climate was warmer in the past, before human C02 was significant. There are 2 reasons for this climate change BS. 1) If taxpayer funding dries up, all the “climate scientists” and “environmentalists” will be out of a job. 2) Do nothing government scumbags want another source of taxes (carbon tax and other energy taxes). Ever wonder why C02 concentration in our atmosphere is so miniscule (less than ½ of one tenth of one percent!), when animals have been putting C02 into our atmosphere for millions of years? It is because plants are starved for C02. What do you do in a greenhouse to get the plants to grow good and healthy? You burn propane to enrich the C02 levels in the greenhouse. Increased C02 means greater crop yields.

How many people are made aware of the following facts: 1) The temperature records indicate that C02 concentrations are led by temperature, not the other way around, strongly suggesting that when the oceans warm, C02 is lost from the oceans, and when temperatures fall, they can absorb more C02. C02 is more soluble in cold water than hot water.

2) Calculating human caloric input into the atmosphere is approximately 10 times more significant in putting heat into the atmosphere than the heat absorption by C02, which is a trace gas. Consider that there are ~ 33 people per square mile on the earth, which gives us each the equivalent of an area that is less than 1000 feet x 1000 feet (~70% of which would be ocean)

3) Water vapor is more significant as a greenhouse gas than C02. The gas concentration in our atmosphere by gas is Nitrogen, Oxygen, H20, Argon and C02 – Argon and C02 are both trace gases with ~ 1% Argon and .048% C02.

Educate yourselves! Do not believe this crap. Read the climategate emails to get a sense of the political games that are being played. The damage to humans by the crap these people are trying to push is much worse than the possibility of the climate getting warmer (actually a big plus, not a minus).

Do the calculations for caloric warming based on the specific heat of air (~1000 joules/Kg = .24 btu(therm)/lb-degF), the air each of us has (1000 ft x 1000 ft <convert to square inches and multiply by the weight of the air above each inch { =atm pressure, 14.7 lb/sq in), and your own caloric input (food you eat + energy you use – gasoline is approx 114,000 btu per gal, on your energy bill, 1 therm is 100,000 btu.)

The climate has always been changing, civilizations have thrived and died off due to it – none because of their own doing. The earth is not stagnant and does not have a normal temperature. The sun does not have a “normal” or unchanging heat output, Our orbital relationship with the sun is constantly changing – always has and always will. This climate change crap is nothing but a way to take money out of one set of wallets and put it into another set of wallets – the purpose of every big media campaign.

The work of Milankovitch is well known and aspects of the change of tilt angle and its apparent effects are taken into account with current scientific thinking on the change of climate and its linked observable data.

While the graph of climate changes and sea level rise over the last 20,000 years shows a slowing of sea level rise in recent times if the curve is followed, the actual data shows the very recent trend is now reversed and sea level rise appears to be increasing not following the longer term trend mentioned.

There are numerous sources of that information and it probably is more useful if you can find the various graphs showing long term and short term trends over say the last 50,000 years to suit the aspect that answers your building up of the picture best.

Here is a simple start but don't be content with that link alone. There are much more authoritative scientific sites but much the same pattern is shown. You may notice the poster talks of scientists proving a point. This reveals a misunderstanding common to lay thinking for in science nothing is ever proven. Scientist set out to find evidence towards challenging or "disproving' a point or theory so any new information gained will lead onto a better understanding which will mean a new theory. This is the basis of scientific method.

"While the graph of climate changes and sea level rise over the last 20,000 years shows a slowing of sea level rise in recent times if the curve is followed, the actual data shows the very recent trend is now reversed and sea level rise appears to be increasing not following the longer term trend mentioned."

"the actual data shows the very recent trend is now reversed and sea level rise appears to be increasing"

in either link. What you need to provide is evidence that completely separates the contributions of anthropogenic and natural sources of global warming and cooling, and that shows the anthropogenic portion is great enough to be responsible for the increase in sea level rise over the past 100 years.